FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS
B o u l d e r B a y C o m m u n i t y E n h a n c e m e n t P r o g r a m P r o j e c t E I S
Comment Letter 169 – Alexander Jr., Mark, 01/31/2010
Comment 169-a: Comment Summary - Building height impacts on snow/ice melting on new
Lakeview/Stateline road alignment.
Appendix AE provides a shadow study for Boulder Bay buildings under Alternative
C. The simulations document that the Stateline, Lakeview and realigned Wassou
roadways will be subject to afternoon sunlight year-round.
Comment Letter 171 – Clark, Loren, Placer County, Community Development Resource
Agency, 02/01/2010
Comment 171-a: Comment Summary - The Project will have significant, long-term impacts on
affordable housing, transit, and public services in Placer County.
Alternatives C and D provide a portion of affordable housing demand onsite.
Although this does not provide enough housing for all new employees, it provides
housing and also transit service for employees residing in more affordable areas such
as Truckee and the Reno area. Communications with local public service providers
that serve the Project site have not indicated significant, long-term impacts will
result.
Comment 171-b: Comment Summary - The EIS does not describe temporary or permanent workforce
housing. The designs for Alts. B, D, and E are inadequate. The Project needs to
provide housing for 50% of new employees.
Chapter 4.11 of the DEIS analyzes employment and the demand for workforce
housing. While Placer County maintains a requirement for project’s to provide an
opportunity for housing 50% of new employees, TRPA and Washoe County do not
have a similar requirement. The DEIS concludes that impacts to workforce housing
demand are less than significant because of the large pool of currently unemployed
workers in the leisure and hospitality section. Alternative A does not require
additional employees because no changes would occur to the project area. Alternative
B would increase the gaming floor area to the maximum amount of space certified by
the NTRPA and would result in up to 14 new employees, which is not considered to
be substantial when considering the availability of unemployed employment
candidates who are local or living in a variety of nearby communities. Alternative E
does not propose any onsite employee housing, but would add 54 employees.
Alternative D would provide 9 affordable units able to house 41 persons, but more
likely 27 employees. As a result, Alternative D would provide housing for
approximately 33% of the estimated employment growth of 83 new employees.
Alternative C would provide 14 affordable housing units able to house 57 persons,
but more likely 38 employees. This conservative estimate would provide housing for
51% of the estimated employment growth of 74 new employees.
Comment 171-c: Comment Summary - The Alternative Transportation Plan in App. F is underfunded
for Placer County, and a new mitigation measure should be added to address
appropriate fees.
Please see response to comment 137-h.
Comment 171-d: Comment Summary - Speedboat Beach recreation mitigation needs to include
measures for additional trash removal.
SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 57